The thing us that this policy wasn't why most people weren't leaving facebook to come to google+. In the privacy-nut nerd circles it might have been but most people using facebook are fine with giving out their real name.
Privacy-Nuts?
Facebook has reached a level where the user base is roughly estimated to cover around 37% of the total world population and along with this huge user base, the fake user base has risen to 27% of the total Facebook users. In other words, it means that if you get 10 friendship requests a day, then out of that 10 only 7 or 8 are real and the rest are fake (Nyberg, 2010).
After people getting fired, or refused jobs based on Facebook postings, even the brain dead are waking up.
a wireless system can experience transmitter failure, receiver failure, radio interference, battery failure (transmitter or receiver). This team tries to mitigate that potential failure by adding more transmitters.
I recommend they add a cable operated backup.
Easier to stick with the current cable and add a bike shoe on the back tire backup. You want it simpler? Go fixed gear.
As a self confessed google scholar you should know better than to conflate the precise regularity of the cell tower's clock (which serves its need to time slice) with having accurate time or world wide time synchronization. The former (regularity) is needed, the latter (accuracy) is not.
Yes cell towers need accurate clocks, but NO they do not have to be in perfect synchronization with GPS or even NTP time. As each handset registers with each tower it must know when its next time slice is due. The tower tells it the handset what it thinks the time is, and which time slice the cell should listen on, and the handset synchronizes with the tower. It doesn't care if the tower is off by three days and 36 minutes. It syncs to what ever the tower says.
Towers can be off. Sometimes by several minutes. It doesn't matter. As long as the tower's clock is precisely regular (as opposed to precisely accurate) there will be no problem. I've drive from town to town and noticed time changes as you roam from one network to the other. Its simply not a problem. Not even for cell hand-off.
Towers didn't even have GPS data receivers until the feds imposed e911 on the carriers, (who bitched loud and long about it), and still don't have GPS in many countries. NTP time is overkill for the tower's ability to set your handset clock. But NO EXTERNAL time reference is needed to run a cell tower. Handsets will listen to and sync their internal timers (as opposed to their clocks) to what ever tower they can pick up.
(Oh, and setting your handset clock is not a requirement to connecting to towers. Check your phone settings. You can turn it off and set your handset clock to Vulcan Standard Summer Time and your phone will still work fine.)
Its simple. The Cellular network does not REQUIRE GPS time or GPS timing accuracy.
Much of the cell phone infrastructure derives it's necessary precision timing from GPS.
Ah, no. But thanks for playing.
GPS in cell phones is a new feature. No part of cell service is dependent on GPS except e911, which is poorly implemented in most areas. Judging from your Slashdot ID you are probable too young to remember the Razr phone era. No one had GPS in phones in those days.
You are probably also too young to remember that precise network time has been available since before you were born, and standardized and made freely around 1985. Google NTP some time as soon as you have your homework done.
Of course, it's been shut down in the US because it's "too expensive", although the cost of running it was neglible. People are insanely stupid.
On the contrary. People can make cost benefit analysis insanely easy. A few Loran stations, positions well known, fall to HARM missiles in minutes 1 thru 20 of a area wide conflict. (Its far more likely the operators of any system that vulnerable would have standing orders to shut it down and run like hell).
In the mean time, ships with Inertial Guidance systems (not to mention simple sextants) know where they are without even firing up their radar.
And a bunch of them scattered around make it very difficult to target. Further more, while you are wasting your million dollar missiles on hundred dollar jammers, you are giving away the location of your missile platform (be it air, surface or sub surface).
So if your ships can readily navigate without GPS , then you can be pretty sure that all other military vessels will be able to do the same.
So this is not a military exercise in the normal sense, this exercise is obviously targeted at military actions against civilian populations, where GPS jamming comes into play,
What a load of rubbish.
Near-fleet GPS jamming has nothing to do with ship navigation. Navies have been navigating ships without GPS for several hundred years. GPS jamming is to decoy incoming missiles which use GPS as ONE OF the methods of target location.
Civilians, on the other hand have no critical dependency on GPS. Its largely a toy for the day to day user and a convenient (but non critical) aid for the traveler.
The GPS bands are no where near satellite TV bands.
GPS satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal). Satellite TV uses the C-band frequencies of 5.4 GHz band (5.15 to 5.35 GHz, or 5.47 to 5.725 GHz, or 5.725 to 5.875 GHz, depending on the region of the world).
Therefore it seems highly unlikely GPS jamming is the cause of any significant TV reception problems. G-Band (aka C-Band Radar) sits right in the middle of the Satellite TV band, and that is the likely source of any TV interference.
Apple makes a Apple makes a negligible amount of profit off of its App Store. of profit off of its App Store.
You would be set for life with 1/10000th of that "negligible amount".
Apple makes 30% of everything that flows thru the App Store, and itunes and ibooks and iwhatever. The days when they could claim they were running the itunes/app store at a loss are long gone (if they ever existed).
Your analysis seems to assume no other promotional efforts other than casting the ebook upon the waters and waiting. That seems unlikely. Most authors, even new authors have enough sense to blog it, flog it, tweet it, or something.
These get reader reviews, (stars) which get more interest, etc. Slow, yes. Impossible? Not at all.
Chris Culver wrote "The Abbey" as his first book, sold it via B&N Pubit, and Amazon Self Publish for 99 cents. He started out on Smashwords (for free as I recall). First release had a lot of typos, but he listened to his readers, cleaned it up, and has become a best seller on B&N.
I have no clue how many he has sold, but the point is, that a little self promotion and utilizing all the available platforms goes a long way. Nobody should expect to write something, put it for sale on a single obscure website and rake in the cash. If no one else has anything to gain by publishing your ebook, you as the author will have to do some promotion. But the tools are there
Your fear, expressed above, is not unfounded, but why should it be any different?
In what possible world would a Joe Random Novelist, with no friends, contacts, or reviewers be able to sell his book to the masses with no effort on his part? A great story never told will never become popular. There are also Demand Printing facilities where you can get a couple dozen paperbacks printed to hand out to friends.
Authors that started out Self Publishing include John Grisham, L. Ron Hubbard, Irma Rombauer, Richard Paul Evans, Jack Canfield, Mark Hensen, James Redfield, Beatrix Potter, Gertrude Stein, Deepak Chopra, Upton Sinclair, Henry David Thoreau, Virginia Woolf, Tom Clancy, Stephen Crane, Margaret Atwood, L. Frank Baum, William Blake, Ken Blanchard, Robert Bly, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Lord Byron, Willa Cather, Pat Conroy, E.E. Cummings, W.E.B. DuBois, Alexander Dumas, T.S. Eliot.
Yeah, and? Do you really think his family -- and, indeed, the reading public -- would be happier if he'd forgotten about that writing nonsense and stuck to his day job?
A bit combative are we?
The point us: he could AFFORD take 5 years and not be fscked. (or hungry or homeless).
His work supported his writing and allowed him the luxury of careful craftsmanship, which is far too often missing in popular authors.
Ebooks sold thru the major publishing houses usually yield far less than 35%, because they amortize the entire publishing process and some authors report they ding you for lost dead tree book sales due to ebook sales bases on a formula, which the author is contractually precluded from making public.
Yes, but the mount of money that a best selling author makes on a given copy is probably only 10%, if you cut the price down to $1 or $2 and self publish through Amazon you'd get $0.30 or $0.70 per copy sold. Or $350k on 1 million copies. Whereas you might get $500k on a similar number of paperbacks selling for $5 a copy. But, when all is said and done, you just have to convince the potential reader that your particular book is worth 20% of the cost of a paperback book in order to make the sale.
Until you are an established writer, or already famous for another reason, you can expect to make somewhere between Didly and Squat on your first book.
If you are either established, or famous, I suspect you could make just as much money selling either via cheap downloads or publishing house production.
The two dollar to three dollar download is actually quite a popular price point for well rated ebooks via direct-to-ebook self publishing channels such as Barnes and Noble or Amazon. The problem with these is a lot of them skip the Editor's desk, and it shows.
It's been proven that hardly anyone cares if a great violinist busks in the subway, he'll get 30 bucks or so. Whereas if Justin Bieber did a little song and dance in a subway there'd be chaos from all the screaming fans.
So what?
If the Great Violinist rents a huge venue and Justin rents the same venue Justin still wins.
The venu has nothing to do with popularity, nor does the route taken to get the ebook on the market. Content it what matters. With performance, content includes more than just the music. With the written word, not so much.
When buying books from Publishing House or a system of Patronage, you have already surrendered the first level of judgement to someone else.
(This is not always a bad thing, given we each only have so much time to spend reading. Society and civilization is built on the judgement of our predecessors. All new things are obscure at first.)
But with publishing or patronage, obscurity is just as often the result, the final result, and the only result.
At least with the 99cent download (or free download) the consumers do not have to surrender their first level of judgement to someone else, and each can read, review, and rate as they see fit. 99cent downloads with crowd sourced rating works just as well as some editor sitting in an office at bring new content to the market.
It takes longer for the browser to page back in the memory used to store that uncompressed jpg than it does to reload it from the disk cache and decompress it. Firefox's "caching" stategy isn't exactly what I would call brilliant...
Give the speed of disks, I seriously doubt there is a significant difference in speed. The browser doesn't "page back in", the OS does that as soon as the program tries to reference the data.
As for using the browser cache, each such use requires a hit to the website to find out if the resource is still current, and that's a significant time penalty right there. Its a totally separate issue, unrelated to OS memory management.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing us that this policy wasn't why most people weren't leaving facebook to come to google+. In the privacy-nut nerd circles it might have been but most people using facebook are fine with giving out their real name.
Privacy-Nuts?
Facebook has reached a level where the user base is roughly estimated to cover around 37% of the total world population and along with this huge user base, the fake user base has risen to 27% of the total Facebook users. In other words, it means that if you get 10 friendship requests a day, then out of that 10 only 7 or 8 are real and the rest are fake (Nyberg, 2010).
After people getting fired, or refused jobs based on Facebook postings, even the brain dead are waking up.
a wireless system can experience transmitter failure, receiver failure, radio interference, battery failure (transmitter or receiver). This team tries to mitigate that potential failure by adding more transmitters.
I recommend they add a cable operated backup.
Easier to stick with the current cable and add a bike shoe on the back tire backup.
You want it simpler? Go fixed gear.
Why not?
Its out of the reach of Sweden, and internet close to anywhere.
Who's ignorant?
As a self confessed google scholar you should know better than to conflate the precise regularity of the cell tower's clock (which serves its need to time slice) with having accurate time or world wide time synchronization. The former (regularity) is needed, the latter (accuracy) is not.
Yes cell towers need accurate clocks, but NO they do not have to be in perfect synchronization with GPS or even NTP time. As each handset registers with each tower it must know when its next time slice is due.
The tower tells it the handset what it thinks the time is, and which time slice the cell should listen on, and the handset synchronizes with the tower. It doesn't care if the tower is off by three days and 36 minutes. It syncs to what ever the tower says.
Towers can be off. Sometimes by several minutes. It doesn't matter. As long as the tower's clock is precisely regular (as opposed to precisely accurate) there will be no problem. I've drive from town to town and noticed time changes as you roam from one network to the other. Its simply not a problem. Not even for cell hand-off.
Towers didn't even have GPS data receivers until the feds imposed e911 on the carriers, (who bitched loud and long about it), and still don't have GPS in many countries. NTP time is overkill for the tower's ability to set your handset clock. But NO EXTERNAL time reference is needed to run a cell tower. Handsets will listen to and sync their internal timers (as opposed to their clocks) to what ever tower they can pick up.
(Oh, and setting your handset clock is not a requirement to connecting to towers. Check your phone settings. You can turn it off and set your handset clock to Vulcan Standard Summer Time and your phone will still work fine.)
Its simple. The Cellular network does not REQUIRE GPS time or GPS timing accuracy.
Much of the cell phone infrastructure derives it's necessary precision timing from GPS.
Ah, no. But thanks for playing.
GPS in cell phones is a new feature. No part of cell service is dependent on GPS except e911, which is poorly implemented in most areas. Judging from your Slashdot ID you are probable too young to remember the Razr phone era. No one had GPS in phones in those days.
You are probably also too young to remember that precise network time has been available since before you were born, and standardized and made freely around 1985. Google NTP some time as soon as you have your homework done.
Gps on civilian aircraft is very new, having been pioneered by Alaska Airlines less than ten years ago. It is still an auxiliary nav method.
But this story is not about the USA.
Of course, it's been shut down in the US because it's "too expensive", although the cost of running it was neglible. People are insanely stupid.
On the contrary. People can make cost benefit analysis insanely easy.
A few Loran stations, positions well known, fall to HARM missiles in minutes 1 thru 20 of a area wide conflict.
(Its far more likely the operators of any system that vulnerable would have standing orders to shut it down and run like hell).
In the mean time, ships with Inertial Guidance systems (not to mention simple sextants) know where they are without even firing up their radar.
You can target the jammers =) like a great glowing radio beacon.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Depends on where your jammers are. These things are cheap and easy to deploy and floating beacons these days, costing less than few hundred dollars. Army has them too. See http://www.jammerall.com/products/Portable-GPS-Jammer-(GPSL1%7B47%7DL2).html and http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/pics/gpsjam-7.jpg
And a bunch of them scattered around make it very difficult to target. Further more, while you are wasting your million dollar missiles on hundred dollar jammers, you are giving away the location of your missile platform (be it air, surface or sub surface).
Exactly what I was thinking.
What the hell is a fishing boat doing within 20 miles of a major exercise?
So if your ships can readily navigate without GPS , then you can be pretty sure that all other military vessels will be able to do the same.
So this is not a military exercise in the normal sense, this exercise is obviously targeted at military actions against civilian populations, where GPS jamming comes into play,
What a load of rubbish.
Near-fleet GPS jamming has nothing to do with ship navigation. Navies have been navigating ships without GPS for several hundred years. GPS jamming is to decoy incoming missiles which use GPS as ONE OF the methods of target location.
Civilians, on the other hand have no critical dependency on GPS. Its largely a toy for the day to day user and a convenient (but non critical) aid for the traveler.
The GPS bands are no where near satellite TV bands.
GPS satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal).
Satellite TV uses the C-band frequencies of 5.4 GHz band (5.15 to 5.35 GHz, or 5.47 to 5.725 GHz, or 5.725 to 5.875 GHz, depending on the region of the world).
Therefore it seems highly unlikely GPS jamming is the cause of any significant TV reception problems.
G-Band (aka C-Band Radar) sits right in the middle of the Satellite TV band, and that is the likely source of any TV interference.
Salt grain, exhausted. Please send dump truck full of salt.
Search works across all folders too.
Plus, any competent mail package, will file things for you. Nobody i know manually files email.
Apple makes a Apple makes a negligible amount of profit off of its App Store. of profit off of its App Store.
You would be set for life with 1/10000th of that "negligible amount".
Apple makes 30% of everything that flows thru the App Store, and itunes and ibooks and iwhatever.
The days when they could claim they were running the itunes/app store at a loss are long gone (if they ever existed).
Then, it's not really monkeys. It's more of monkeys with an oracle. That oracle thing made a whole world of difference.
The guy who set this up has almost as much intelligence as a monkey but is a whole lot more intellectually dishonest much more of a publicity whore.
Well I hope TFA explains it better than TFS.
This happened because the destination page was able to identify Facebook's original request and served a JPEG file.
Lets see, click a thumbnail, got to the third party server, which does whatever the hell it wants to with your request.
Welcome to the intertubes.
Your analysis seems to assume no other promotional efforts other than casting the ebook upon the waters and waiting.
That seems unlikely. Most authors, even new authors have enough sense to blog it, flog it, tweet it, or something.
These get reader reviews, (stars) which get more interest, etc. Slow, yes. Impossible? Not at all.
Chris Culver wrote "The Abbey" as his first book, sold it via B&N Pubit, and Amazon Self Publish for 99 cents. He started out on Smashwords (for free as I recall).
First release had a lot of typos, but he listened to his readers, cleaned it up, and has become a best seller on B&N.
I have no clue how many he has sold, but the point is, that a little self promotion and utilizing all the available platforms goes a long way. Nobody should expect to write something, put it for sale on a single obscure website and rake in the cash. If no one else has anything to gain by publishing your ebook, you as the author will have to do some promotion. But the tools are there
Your fear, expressed above, is not unfounded, but why should it be any different?
In what possible world would a Joe Random Novelist, with no friends, contacts, or reviewers be able to sell his book to the masses with no effort on his part? A great story never told will never become popular. There are also Demand Printing facilities where you can get a couple dozen paperbacks printed to hand out to friends.
Authors that started out Self Publishing include John Grisham, L. Ron Hubbard, Irma Rombauer, Richard Paul Evans, Jack Canfield, Mark Hensen, James Redfield, Beatrix Potter, Gertrude Stein, Deepak Chopra, Upton Sinclair, Henry David Thoreau, Virginia Woolf, Tom Clancy, Stephen Crane, Margaret Atwood, L. Frank Baum, William Blake, Ken Blanchard, Robert Bly, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Lord Byron, Willa Cather, Pat Conroy, E.E. Cummings, W.E.B. DuBois, Alexander Dumas, T.S. Eliot.
Prior art means nothing anymore. ------ First to file, remember ! .
Go back and do your homework. You can't patent what is widely available in the market place.
Prior Art still means something.
You'd lose that bet. See this post.
Tolkien had a day job.
Yeah, and? Do you really think his family -- and, indeed, the reading public -- would be happier if he'd forgotten about that writing nonsense and stuck to his day job?
A bit combative are we?
The point us: he could AFFORD take 5 years and not be fscked. (or hungry or homeless).
His work supported his writing and allowed him the luxury of careful craftsmanship, which is far too often missing in popular authors.
Tolkien had a day job.
On a 99 cent book, the author gets 35 cents.
Depends on the sales system the author uses.
One of the biggest is Barnes and Noble. Their PubIt service gives the author 60%.
Amazon's Self Publish program gives 70% royalties to the author in certain markets, (List price minus delivery price of around 15 cents per megabyte).
Ebooks sold thru the major publishing houses usually yield far less than 35%, because they amortize the entire publishing process and some authors report they ding you for lost dead tree book sales due to ebook sales bases on a formula, which the author is contractually precluded from making public.
Yes, but the mount of money that a best selling author makes on a given copy is probably only 10%, if you cut the price down to $1 or $2 and self publish through Amazon you'd get $0.30 or $0.70 per copy sold. Or $350k on 1 million copies. Whereas you might get $500k on a similar number of paperbacks selling for $5 a copy. But, when all is said and done, you just have to convince the potential reader that your particular book is worth 20% of the cost of a paperback book in order to make the sale.
Your estimates for publishing house earnings may be a bit optimistic at 10%.
See this author's story: http://www.genreality.net/the-reality-of-a-times-bestseller
Until you are an established writer, or already famous for another reason, you can expect to make somewhere between Didly and Squat on your first book.
If you are either established, or famous, I suspect you could make just as much money selling either via cheap downloads or publishing house production.
The two dollar to three dollar download is actually quite a popular price point for well rated ebooks via direct-to-ebook self publishing channels such as Barnes and Noble or Amazon. The problem with these is a lot of them skip the Editor's desk, and it shows.
It's been proven that hardly anyone cares if a great violinist busks in the subway, he'll get 30 bucks or so. Whereas if Justin Bieber did a little song and dance in a subway there'd be chaos from all the screaming fans.
So what?
If the Great Violinist rents a huge venue and Justin rents the same venue Justin still wins.
The venu has nothing to do with popularity, nor does the route taken to get the ebook on the market.
Content it what matters. With performance, content includes more than just the music.
With the written word, not so much.
When buying books from Publishing House or a system of Patronage, you have already surrendered the first level of judgement to someone else.
(This is not always a bad thing, given we each only have so much time to spend reading. Society and civilization is built on the judgement of our predecessors. All new things are obscure at first.)
But with publishing or patronage, obscurity is just as often the result, the final result, and the only result.
At least with the 99cent download (or free download) the consumers do not have to surrender their first level of judgement to someone else, and each can read, review, and rate as they see fit. 99cent downloads with crowd sourced rating works just as well as some editor sitting in an office at bring new content to the market.
It takes longer for the browser to page back in the memory used to store that uncompressed jpg than it does to reload it from the disk cache and decompress it. Firefox's "caching" stategy isn't exactly what I would call brilliant ...
Give the speed of disks, I seriously doubt there is a significant difference in speed. The browser doesn't "page back in", the OS does that as soon as the program tries to reference the data.
As for using the browser cache, each such use requires a hit to the website to find out if the resource is still current, and that's a significant time penalty right there. Its a totally separate issue, unrelated to OS memory management.
Cream rises to the top in any market.
Release a few books for free.
You build a following.
Don't quit your day job just yet, the market is big enough that anything well written will eventually get attention.
The promise of promotion is all the big publishing houses have left to offer. It may be a short-cut to popularity, but
the price is very very high.